Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
Greg, For DXCC there's no such a 500m rule, you can operate your station (in New-Zealand) remotelly from Portugal as soon as you use your callsign ZL3IX, QSOs will count only for New-Zealand. Have a look at this e-mail a got from DXCC: Jose, Remote operation is legal as for DXCC as long as the rules and regulations are in order. There is no question about any operator using his own station remotely. In this example, the operator located in Germany is operating his own station in Portugal so any contacts are valid for his Portuguese DXCC. Contact he makes with other stations count for Portugal, not Germany. 73, Norm Fusaro, W3IZ Radiosport and Field Services Department Manager 73 Jose CT1EEB - Original Message - From: "Greg - ZL3IX" To: Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 6:54 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear them Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
It’s not my intent to disparage anyone. Just an attempt to better define the intent of the rule as it relates to what a station is. Maybe if the feed point of those antennas are within the circle it’s good to go. Beyond that maybe another rule applies. Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Oct 13, 2019, at 1:04 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: > > > Cecil, > > Please think again. > > Many topbanders use antennas and feedlines that extend beyond > a 500 meter diameter circle. Please don't disparage us. > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > From: "Cecil" > To: "thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N" > Cc: "Greg - ZL3IX" , "topband" > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 4:50:04 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation > > I think the key word is “Station” which assumes that 500M diameter circle > encompasses all aspects of the station to include feedlines and antennas. > > A transmitter and/or receiver are not a station without their associated > antenna systems. > > Cecil > K5DL > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Oct 13, 2019, at 11:39 AM, thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N > > wrote: > > > > May I respectfully point out that DXCC rule 9: b) says: > > > > *b)* All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a > > specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle. > > > > Although it is a rather "strange" rule, it only mentions transmitters and > > receivers, it thankfully does not mention antennas at all. > > > > 73 Thor, TF4M > > > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: > >> > >> Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I > >> use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC > >> rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of > >> each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, > >> and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be > >> equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, > >> probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. > >> > >> 73, Greg, ZL3IX > >> > >>> On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: > >>> Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work > >> the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear > >> them > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating > >> in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. > >> Yes..some > >>>> people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction > >> from > >>>> that. > >>>> > >>>> Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used > >> remote > >>>> receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my > >> log > >>>> but I didn't claim credit for that contact. > >>>> > >>>> YMMV! > >>>> > >>>> 73, Roger N1RJ > >>>> _ > >>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > >> Reflector > >>> _ > >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > >> Reflector > >> > >> _ > >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > >> Reflector > >> > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
I think in Frank's case the WAS 50-mile rule applies. Wes N7WS On 10/13/2019 11:04 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: Cecil, Please think again. Many topbanders use antennas and feedlines that extend beyond a 500 meter diameter circle. Please don't disparage us. 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Cecil" To: "thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N" Cc: "Greg - ZL3IX" , "topband" Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 4:50:04 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation I think the key word is “Station” which assumes that 500M diameter circle encompasses all aspects of the station to include feedlines and antennas. A transmitter and/or receiver are not a station without their associated antenna systems. Cecil K5DL _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
Cecil, Please think again. Many topbanders use antennas and feedlines that extend beyond a 500 meter diameter circle. Please don't disparage us. 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Cecil" To: "thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N" Cc: "Greg - ZL3IX" , "topband" Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 4:50:04 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation I think the key word is “Station” which assumes that 500M diameter circle encompasses all aspects of the station to include feedlines and antennas. A transmitter and/or receiver are not a station without their associated antenna systems. Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Oct 13, 2019, at 11:39 AM, thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N > wrote: > > May I respectfully point out that DXCC rule 9: b) says: > > *b)* All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a > specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle. > > Although it is a rather "strange" rule, it only mentions transmitters and > receivers, it thankfully does not mention antennas at all. > > 73 Thor, TF4M > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: >> >> Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I >> use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC >> rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of >> each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, >> and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be >> equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, >> probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. >> >> 73, Greg, ZL3IX >> >>> On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: >>> Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work >> the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear >> them >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson >> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating >> in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. >> Yes..some >>>> people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction >> from >>>> that. >>>> >>>> Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used >> remote >>>> receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my >> log >>>> but I didn't claim credit for that contact. >>>> >>>> YMMV! >>>> >>>> 73, Roger N1RJ >>>> _ >>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >>> _ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >> >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >> > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
I think the key word is “Station” which assumes that 500M diameter circle encompasses all aspects of the station to include feedlines and antennas. A transmitter and/or receiver are not a station without their associated antenna systems. Cecil K5DL Sent from my iPad > On Oct 13, 2019, at 11:39 AM, thorvaldur S T E F A N S S O N > wrote: > > May I respectfully point out that DXCC rule 9: b) says: > > *b)* All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a > specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle. > > Although it is a rather "strange" rule, it only mentions transmitters and > receivers, it thankfully does not mention antennas at all. > > 73 Thor, TF4M > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: >> >> Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I >> use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC >> rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of >> each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, >> and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be >> equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, >> probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. >> >> 73, Greg, ZL3IX >> >>> On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: >>> Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work >> the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear >> them >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson >> wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating >> in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. >> Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction >> from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used >> remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my >> log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >>> _ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >> >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >> > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
May I respectfully point out that DXCC rule 9: b) says: *b)* All transmitters and receivers comprising a station used for a specific contact must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle. Although it is a rather "strange" rule, it only mentions transmitters and receivers, it thankfully does not mention antennas at all. 73 Thor, TF4M On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: > Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I > use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC > rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of > each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, > and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be > equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, > probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. > > 73, Greg, ZL3IX > > On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: > > Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work > the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear > them > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson > wrote: > >> > >> There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating > in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. > Yes..some > >> people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction > from > >> that. > >> > >> Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used > remote > >> receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my > log > >> but I didn't claim credit for that contact. > >> > >> YMMV! > >> > >> 73, Roger N1RJ > >> _ > >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
this is a bit long, but I think explaining the hole in the rules and how they apply to us is worthwhile.. . Unfortunately, there is a significant hole in the regulations on this subject. An Amateur STATION in the US no longer HAS an assigned call sign. - We used to be issued a license that consisted of two parts, a station license and an operators license. That is no longer so. The "station" license issued now says station privileges=PRIMARY. All this means is that as a properly licensed operator, we may be the primary control operator of any amateur station. The licensed OWNER of an amateur station - a licensee - is required to adequately secure and control his station. It REQUIRES his ACTIVE agreement to allow another amateur to control (operate) his station. Because we are authorized to be primary control operator, we are more likely to - and generally are expected to - identify with our own callsign. We are identifying the licensee who is responsible for the station emissions at that time. Minor variations for club callsigns and special event callsigns. Never the less ANY amateur station must have a suitably licensed control operator. (some minor allowances for certain types of automatic stations generally on VHF-UHF) There is absolutely nothing in the rules relating to the physical location of the control operator. This is only slightly confused if a licensee of another country utilizes control operator privileges on a US station. It appears to be a non issue for any appropriately licensed operator from a country with a reciprocal operating agreement in place. It gets sticky when it is an operator from a country with no such agreement. Never the less, an amateur station within the FCC jurisdiction must identify with an FCC issued callsign, or one officially recognized by the FCC in reciprocal operator agreement IE W2/G5ABC. This provides proper identification of the control operator. ( somehow I think W2/P5DX would not be accepted) These are issues I've dealt with for many decades in the VHF-UHF repeater and remotely controlled station environment. Id rather have a station license. ALL comments above ONLY apply to stations within the FCC jurisdiction area In summary, RF generated within a country must be identified by a callsign recognized by the authorities of that country. For remote stations within the US operated by a US licensee, it appears to be legal to use either his own callsign, or the callsign of the station owner ( club/special event variations) Today, the callsign districts carry little meaning. We are not required to identify W2/WA6CDR if we are either visiting or have moved to the 2nd district and have yet to notify the change in station location. I know that I am correct that it is NOT legal if a foreign operator uses a station inside the US and signs ONLY his own county callsign. I desire for that to be true in other countries, but it is not a fact, it is a desire. Remotely controlled stations should not be treated any differently than any other station as long as the station is properly identified. If the remote stations equipment and antennas conform to the contest or DXCC regulations, the station, Properly Identified should be treated identically to any other. It is FCC legal for me to log into a remote station in Maine for the evening hours of the 160CW contest, and then switch to my own station for the morning hours. However, such operation clearly does NOT conform to the contest rules. Unfortunately, there are people who choose to violate the rules- either the words or the intent of the rules in order to gain a perceived advantage. Those people KNOW they cheated in order to get what they got. We can encourage the responsible entity to take notice, but we can not stop it. We can notify the Contest/DXCC folks if we observe such an activity, BUT, be sure of your facts. Using such an accusation as a "weapon"- in either direction - is just as much cheating as the original issue. We can submit our own entries proudly knowing that we did everything within the rules. Enough from me Robin Critchell WA6CDR - Original Message - From: "Roger D Johnson" To: "Top Band Reflector" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 15:23 Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation I've been saying this for years! It's pretty clear in the regs: § 97.119 Station identification. (a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
I've been saying this for years! It's pretty clear in the regs: § 97.119 Station identification. (a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station. Unfortunately, the FCC is a shadow of it's former self with virtually no enforcement anymore. They're a bunch of lawyers whose main concern appears the auctioning of spectrum to make big bucks for the Government...and I thought the airwaves belonged to the people!. 73, Roger N1RJ On 10/12/2019 4:39 PM, Dave Clouser wrote: My opinion, may not be popular. Note: I'm not talking about hams remoting to _their own_ station. That is what the great technology is meant for. A remote station to someone else s equipment is not identifying legally in my opinion. Think about it. What if there is RFI or other malicious interference other coming from that station? There is no way to identify it. The station identifies as whoever is using the remote. Remotes should be required, per FCC, to identify as the station that is transmitting. That means the licensed operator in that particular location who owns the station. Example: NZ3M/W1XXX or whatever. There are hundreds of stations that hams can log into all over the world and operate using their own call sign. Some large stations are $ per minute and many are free. This is my 2 cents, take it as you wish. 73 Dave NZ3M On 10/12/2019 3:54 PM, Raymond Benny wrote: Greg, you, VU2GSM and others openly state how you are operating, and follow the accepted rules. And I'm glad you do. Those who do not and claim DXCC credit for a out of country remote credit should openly be called out. This may not stop many of them but atleast they will known we know their mode of operation. I do hope that those calling out stations have darn good evidence and not doing it as a personal vendetta. Ray, N6VR On Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 11:59 AM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear them Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
I'm of a like mind with FT-8 QSOs. I've broken down and make them because of a friendly club competition, and I put them on LoTW, but I don't count them for DXCC credit. (No argument with those that think otherwise, this is just my personal position) Wes N7WS IOn 10/12/2019 10:21 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
My opinion, may not be popular. Note: I'm not talking about hams remoting to _their own_ station. That is what the great technology is meant for. A remote station to someone else s equipment is not identifying legally in my opinion. Think about it. What if there is RFI or other malicious interference other coming from that station? There is no way to identify it. The station identifies as whoever is using the remote. Remotes should be required, per FCC, to identify as the station that is transmitting. That means the licensed operator in that particular location who owns the station. Example: NZ3M/W1XXX or whatever. There are hundreds of stations that hams can log into all over the world and operate using their own call sign. Some large stations are $ per minute and many are free. This is my 2 cents, take it as you wish. 73 Dave NZ3M On 10/12/2019 3:54 PM, Raymond Benny wrote: Greg, you, VU2GSM and others openly state how you are operating, and follow the accepted rules. And I'm glad you do. Those who do not and claim DXCC credit for a out of country remote credit should openly be called out. This may not stop many of them but atleast they will known we know their mode of operation. I do hope that those calling out stations have darn good evidence and not doing it as a personal vendetta. Ray, N6VR On Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 11:59 AM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear them Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
Greg, you, VU2GSM and others openly state how you are operating, and follow the accepted rules. And I'm glad you do. Those who do not and claim DXCC credit for a out of country remote credit should openly be called out. This may not stop many of them but atleast they will known we know their mode of operation. I do hope that those calling out stations have darn good evidence and not doing it as a personal vendetta. Ray, N6VR On Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 11:59 AM Greg - ZL3IX wrote: > Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I > use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC > rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of > each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, > and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be > equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, > probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. > > 73, Greg, ZL3IX > > On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: > > Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work > the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear > them > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson > wrote: > >> > >> There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating > in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. > Yes..some > >> people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction > from > >> that. > >> > >> Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used > remote > >> receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my > log > >> but I didn't claim credit for that contact. > >> > >> YMMV! > >> > >> 73, Roger N1RJ > >> _ > >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself, and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net, probably not even in the same country as the operator using it. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote: Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear them Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
Good for you Rogeryou always hear about hams using remotes to work the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear them Sent from my iPad > On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > > There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the > DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some > people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from > that. > > Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote > receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log > but I didn't claim credit for that contact. > > YMMV! > > 73, Roger N1RJ > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation
There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved. Yes..some people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction from that. Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used remote receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my log but I didn't claim credit for that contact. YMMV! 73, Roger N1RJ _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation to work ZK3A
Contact the DXCC Desk and submit your observations. On 10/5/2019 1:13 PM, Robert Parkes via Topband wrote: I thought it worth highlighting a post by a well known 160m operator on the CDXC reflector about blatant cheating using Remote Operation:: This morning at 0609z Oct 05 there was I2Txx sending very distinctive bad hand morse wkd ZK3A on 160 far too long after SR in Italy. Two mins later an identical fist and signal strength using the callisgn KC9Fxx also wkd ZK3A.The KC9 was the same strength as other w8/9s clg, so obviously stateside and hence the easy QSO. Question. When claiming DXCC only selected 160m card checkers were permitted, people who could smell a rat.Now we have LOTW match submissions, do they just sail through un scrutinised? 73s BobG3REP _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation to work ZK3A
I thought it worth highlighting a post by a well known 160m operator on the CDXC reflector about blatant cheating using Remote Operation:: This morning at 0609z Oct 05 there was I2Txx sending very distinctive bad hand morse wkd ZK3A on 160 far too long after SR in Italy. Two mins later an identical fist and signal strength using the callisgn KC9Fxx also wkd ZK3A.The KC9 was the same strength as other w8/9s clg, so obviously stateside and hence the easy QSO. Question. When claiming DXCC only selected 160m card checkers were permitted, people who could smell a rat.Now we have LOTW match submissions, do they just sail through un scrutinised? 73s BobG3REP _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
